Ashley Madison offers £300,000 reward amid reports of member suicides

[Caliga]

I am not even a little bit torn.

If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.

This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.

I agree.  I think it's maybe a little bit confusing for people because there's constantly news surrounding illegal sexual deviants (e.g. Jared from Subway) so maybe as a knee-jerk people think "another pervert, no sympathy" even though this case is not at all like the typical one involving sex in the news.

[garbon]

Of Ashley Madison? Sure. Most dating/hook-up sites? I don't think so.

Ah I see where you were going with that. Well I am not sure everybody on dating/hook-up sites wants it released to the world they are a member.

Sure, they probably don't. But then, I think we all might stand to gain if people thought a little bit more before they plastered up their nude pics and their rude lines of conversation.

[garbon]

I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.

"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.

I don't see why you should expect personal privacy when you are posting content to someone else's servers. Maybe if one paid for the privilege, sure.

[Tonitrus]

I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers.

I am not even a little bit torn.

If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.

This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.

If the answer to the question of "Do you think people have the right to not have their private information published by hackers" is "Of course! Unless they are jerks/adulterers/Jews/Muslims/women/languish poster/Berkut" then you do not actually buy into the idea that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the first place.

I'm going to have to agree with Berkut.  I was actually a little taken aback by Tonitrus's post.

As a legal matter, I completely agree with all of you, hackers who invade a private company and expose people's personal business is a crime, hang them as high as Haman,.  But as to my personal sympathies?  If you're going to kill yourself because you're a douche who engages in adultery, and your adulterous affairs were exposed, then "meh".  Sure adultery is not a crime, but it is still scummy behavior in my book.

[garbon]

I think that's a rather hard hearted stance. No sympathy for someone who is deranged enough to think suicide is the best option simply because of some indiscretions.

[Tonitrus]

I think that's a rather hard hearted stance. No sympathy for someone who is deranged enough to think suicide is the best option simply because of some indiscretions.

I don't agree that suicide is always a deranged act (though concede it likely often is), but is certainly in these cases, likely ana extremely desperate, impulsive one. 

I also wouldn't say adultery (especially aided by a site like AM) is just an indiscretion...it is mostly a very callous, selfish act of personal betrayal.  That being said, I am not trying to trumpet strict monogamy or old-fashioned values.  Have at it with open relationships, casual sex, etc.  But if you make that solemn vow to another person, on a human level, adultery is to me, a very heinous, disgusting act.  Not happy with your vow anymore?  Man (or woman) up and get a divorce.

Though like many things, that is measured in degrees however...I wouldn't equate a drunken hookup at the office holiday party with, say, the guy with another entirely other family on the other end of his regular business trips.  But those using AM would almost certainly rank with those more on the more deliberate, callous end of the spectrum. 

[garbon]

Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.

[Tonitrus]

Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.

That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect).  I cannot think of one plausible reason.

[Berkut]

Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.

That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect).  I cannot think of one plausible reason.

My point is that it does not matter one bit - even if they are all the most heinous of callous betraying fucking assholes...they still have the right to privacy, if in fact any such right exists for anyone.

[Barrister]

Who are you to be judge and jury? There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to step out on one's spouse that are not reprehensible. Painting them all with a broad brush seems, as I said, rather callous.

That's where we will likely disagree (but hey, I am always open to enlightenment, and am always glad to be shown to be incorrect).  I cannot think of one plausible reason.

Come on, there are surely lots of plausible reasons:

-person has been told "we're not sleeping together anymore, and only staying together for the children.  But I don't care what you do in your free time"
-person is in an abusive relationship, but is very poor, and is looking for a new partner in order to get out
-person's partner is very sick, perhaps even in a coma, with little to no chance of recovery

Maybe you think those decisions are wrong, but they're certainly not reprehensible.

[garbon]

Some bits from one of my faves, Dan Savage.

http://www.wheelercentre.com/notes/f62f0865e03a

'I'm frequently told that I overemphasize the importance of sex. But I think a marriage is about more than sex. I think sex is less important than marriage. I believe there's more than one way to demonstrate your loyalty and commitment. And if your marriage is rendered meaningless the moment your spouse gets naked with someone else – even if it was just that one time on that business trip – then your marriage didn't mean much to begin with.'

Here are some circumstances in which Savage believes it's reasonable for people to cheat:

• When one partner has mysteriously (and temporarily) lost their libido.
• Men or women whose spouses have Alzheimer's and are no longer husbands or wives but nurses and home-health-care aides
• Men and women who are married to people who don't like sex and do their best to make sure sex is so lousy that their spouses will stop pestering them about it.

'If you are expected to be monogamous and have one person be all things sexually for you, then you have to be whores for each other,' Savage told the New York Times in 2011. 'You have to be up for anything.'

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9747384

Okay, LAH, here's a little something I recently wrote that sums up my position on outside sexual relationships: "Cheating is permissible when it amounts to the least worst option, i.e., it is allowed for someone who has made a monogamous commitment and isn't getting any at home (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause spouse) and divorce isn't an option (sick or disabled spouse, or withholding-without-cause-spouse-who-can't-be-divorced-for-some-karma-imperiling-reason-or-other) and the sex on the side makes it possible for the cheater to stay married and stay sane. (An exception can be made for a married person with a kink that his or her spouse can't/won't accommodate, so long as the kink can be taken care of safely and discreetly.)"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/dan-savage-infidelity-is-_n_3404378.html

Savage stopped by Seattle's Q13 Fox station this week to talk about his views on infidelity and his new book, American Savage. Savage said that when two partners have different sexual needs, cheating can be a way to keep their marriage alive.

"If one person is completely done with sex and the other person is not done with sex, what do you advise people to do in that circumstance? Divorce? Traumatize their children?" he said. "I look at that and I say 'You know, do what you need to do to stay married and stay sane. And maybe that involves cheating, but as the lesser of two evils. Divorce is an evil, cheating is an evil, there are circumstances in which cheating is the lesser evil."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/dan-savage-cheating-can-s_n_3362115.html

Recounting a story from his book about a man who took a lover on the side when his wife's libido disappeared, Savage told host Josh Zepps that there are times when cheating "is the right thing to do."

Sometimes it can save a marriage," he said.

Ultimately, the wife's libido came back, the man parted ways with his lover and their marriage endured. In that situation, Savage says the infidelity was the "lesser of two evils."

"Divorcing his wife, economically disadvantaging his wife, traumatizing his children, versus having this discreet affair on the side -- I look at that and I say the affair was the right thing to do," he said. "Divorce would have been the wrong thing to do. Two wrong things maybe -- two evils -- but divorce was the greater evil."

To those who argue with his logic, claiming that good relationships are built on honesty, Savage says that "relationships aren't depositions."

"We lie to our partners all the time," he said. "There are some truths you don't tell to spare your partner's feelings and to allow them to continue to love you the way they want to love you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html?_r=0

"The mistake that straight people made," Savage told me, "was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey." In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women "the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed," we extended to men the confines women had always endured. "And it's been a disaster for marriage."

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/savage-love-mtv-maggie-gallagher/Content?oid=3590101

My wife and I click on just about every level—parenting, money, religion, politics, etc—except for sex. After our last child was born, my advances were increasingly rejected. In an attempt to avoid pressuring her, I stopped initiating. One week passed, nothing. A month passed, nothing. A year passed, nothing. Depression and anger set in. But I was committed to being the "perfect husband," so I still didn't pressure her, hoping her libido would return. It didn't. Our "happy" life continued, and if you were a friend or neighbor, you'd have no idea this was going on. After two years, I finally lost it and confronted her. I expected that an open dialogue would improve the situation, but a month passed and she never brought it back up.

She's a stay-at-home parent, so she does most of the shopping, laundry, etc, but I contribute to the housework. We live in a large house, so we also have housecleaners and landscapers. Additionally, our kids are respectful and have been taught to pick up after themselves. The bottom line is that I've removed all of the obstacles I can think of.

I realize I'm lucky to be happy and fulfilled in just about every area of my life, but I've become fidgety, short-tempered, and hypersensitive. I don't want to have an affair, and I don't want a divorce. I love my wife and our children, but I'm at a loss as to what to do. Knowing there are women out there in the world who actually enjoy sex is devastating (it kills me to listen to you field a call from a sexually confident woman on your podcast). I am mourning the loss of intimacy and connection with another person. —Please Advise Troubled Husband

...

But there are times when monogamy—its pressures, its discontents, its unquestioned acceptance—can destroy an otherwise decent marriage.

Take PATH's marriage. If his wife doesn't come around—if her libido doesn't kick back into gear after mental or medical intervention—this couple is surely headed for divorce. PATH is not only feeling depressed and resentful, he's also contemplating an affair (even if he's in the dismiss-that-idea stage). Sooner or later, he's going to cheat or walk. But this marriage, a marriage that works on every other level ("parenting, money, religion, politics, etc"), could be saved if Mr. and Mrs. PATH were encouraged to openly and honestly discuss their sexual needs and their sexual disconnect. If Mrs. PATH is done with sex—for now, perhaps forever—Mr. and Mrs. PATH should be encouraged to come to a reasonable, mutually agreeable accommodation, one that allows Mr. PATH to get his needs met elsewhere if that's what he needs to stay sane and stay married.

I'm not sure what to call someone who places a higher value on preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over preserving that marriage itself, Maggie, but I wouldn't call that person a defender of marriage.

[Malthus]

I am not even a little bit torn.

If you have a principled respect for individuals right to privacy as a foudnational right, it should not (indeed it CANNOT) only apply to people you like or agree with.

This is yet another litmus test for whether or not people actually believe the bullshit they spout as a matter of course.

I agree.  I think it's maybe a little bit confusing for people because there's constantly news surrounding illegal sexual deviants (e.g. Jared from Subway) so maybe as a knee-jerk people think "another pervert, no sympathy" even though this case is not at all like the typical one involving sex in the news.

I think Berk's point is that they could be the perviest pervs who ever perved, as long as what they are doing isn't a crime, they have a right to privacy.

I tend to think signing up on a website dedicated to cheating is highly skeevy, but that doesn't change the fact that violating the user's privacy is dead wrong.

[viper37]

I am torn...illegal hackers are usually scum, but so are adulterers.

I don't know. I don't know enough about the kinds of people who use Ashley Madison to make that claim.

police officers, army officers, White House & DOD officers, etc.

[Syt]

I don't see the benefit for society in publicly shaming people who registered on that website. There's a strong knee jerk reaction of Schadenfreude or to pillory someone who has transgressed against society's norms or done something one strongly disagrees with, but at the end of the day there has to be a balance between the person's right to privacy and the public's and invested parties' need to be informed. And in many cases I would err on the side of privacy.

[Maximus]

I don't really think a person should be expecting the internet to maintain one's privacy for anything like hook ups.

"The internet" is rather ambiguous, and I agree that it is not very wise to expect privacy at the current state of the art. However one should be able to expect personal privacy. It is an extremely important personal right.

I don't see why you should expect personal privacy when you are posting content to someone else's servers. Maybe if one paid for the privilege, sure.

Perhaps one should not expect privacy regarding information freely given away, but that is significantly different than "anything like hookups".